It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constit

It isn't just perfect, lab-like conditions. It's a different set of rules. The International Association of Athletics Federations sets standards of what constitutes a marathon. Nike's event didn't follow those rules, so results in the two can't be directly compared. It's apples and oranges. The most undeniable difference between the Breaking2 event and what would be allowed in an record-eligible marathon is the pacers used. In Breaking2, they swapped in different groups of 6 people to run in a carefully-engineered triangle formation directly in front of the main runners. In a real race, the winner cannot draft behind others the whole way. Because at some point obviously the winner must pull ahead, and the rules disallow drafting behind anyone who isn't running the same race. So the rules specifically forbid exactly what Nike did with pacers. When you change the rules in a way that you know has a quantifiable effect on the outcome (and I'm sure Nike can tell you the numbers since they used computational fluid dynamics and wind tunnels to select the best pacer formation), it's not comparable anymore. Now personally I don't have any problem with Nike's event. It was a fun exhibition thing that inspired and challenged people. Probably some good research even came out of it. But it's still fair to point out how the results on this don't really count.